Obama ought to be impeached;
Debate Rounds (5)
Here are some of what this bill is trying to pose:
"these negotiations are a critically important matter of national security and foreign policy for the United States and its closest allies"
"even though the agreement may commence, because the sanctions regime was imposed by Congress and only Congress can permanently modify or eliminate that regime"
Mr. Instigator, under the Constitution of the United State, under Article 3 Section 3, it states that "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." and according to this bill and Congress, Mr. Obama does is not doing anything in his presidency, and has not done anything in his presidency yet, that would make him fit this description. Furthermore, according to Laws.com, "This part of Article 3 says that treason is when someone tries to attack or wage war against the United States or if he or she tries to help enemies do so in some way." and currently Iran and America are not at war nor, has Mr. President in anyway leveraged one. In fact no one has declared war on Iran, and the chances of that is not very likely at the moment.
That above is the link to the search on the War on Terror search. According to that search, that war has been going on since the Bush administration, as a cold war. Furthermore, the list of Combatants does not enlist Iran and there is no mention of such.
Mr. Instigator, I would ask that you read H.R. 1191, and please base your argument off of that source as that is the best source to use in this debate. In addition, if you read H.R. 1191, the interior motive is to be used as a channel for intelligence gathering and control over the government. In a way, it is like what the U.S. is doing to Cuba, trying to rid their government of their dictatorship totalitarian government.
On your point about how it could be used for weaponry, you do make a good point. However, we cannot assume that Iran will be using the money provided for weaponry, other than it purpose to be used for education. If this entire argument was based on assumptions, then this argument is basically pointless.
I would ask you Mr. Instigator to please use some evidential sources to support your argument so that I have ground to counterargue what you are proposing. I want to point out again, that this is Congress that has control over this and not Mr. President.
I would first off, before continuing with my argument and factual evidence, ask to please present me with any proof that Iran is a terrorist country.... From my personal knowledge, and according to online Iran is not a terrorist country. Iran is one of America's allies and has always been... You may be confused with Iraq of which is a terrorist country...
But this argument does not lie in the fact that either may be a terrorist country, rather that Mr. Obama is committing treason based on the personal opinions of you. You have failed other than proving your arguments above, that he has done so. Your argument is based on the assumption of what Iran's government purposes are in use for the money that America is loaning to Iran for education. As I have said before, H.R. 1191 says it all and proves it all. If you read the article above, you will find that Iran is not a terrorist country, rather that it is contributing to fighting terrorism.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 5 months ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argues that Iran is an enemy and Obama should be impeached for making a treaty with them. Con proves that the Iran deal ensured that Iran was no longer an "enemy" of the U.S. Con also proves that the deal ensured better security to the US from Iran, thus essentially making it an ally. Pro drops these and fails to explain how the deal helps terrorist causes. Vote Con.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.